United States: PA Supreme Court Grants Petitions For Allowance Of Appeal In Connection With Planned Residential Developments (PRDs)

In Newtown Square East, L.P. v. Township of Newtown, 2014 WL 4745695, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted petitions for allowance of appeal to determine the specificity with which a developer must identify a proposed use of a structure within a tentative plan for a Planned Residential Development (PRD). In the case, the court discusses whether the Township of Newtown's PRD ordinance meets the criteria of Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), and whether the tentative plan at issue met the requirements of the ordinance. Justice McCaffery authored the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Castille, Justice Baer and Justice Stevens.

By way of background, a PRD is a flexible zoning arrangement where a single area of land can be developed for multiple uses (often a combination of residential and nonresidential) that do not correspond to the zoning restrictions and regulations established in any one zoning district. In Pennsylvania, Article VII of the MPC provides the parameters within which a municipality sets forth the standards, conditions and regulations for a PRD. A developer must submit an application for tentative approval of a PRD, which must provide the information "reasonably necessary to disclose to the governing body or planning agency . . . the density of land use to be allocated to parts of the site to be developed . . . [and] the use and approximate height, bulk and location of buildings and other structures." 53. P.S. § 10707 (2014). A public hearing on the tentative plan must occur within 60 days of the application's submission. If an application for final approval complies with the tentative plan previously approved, a new public hearing is not required; however, if there are variations between the plan submitted for final approval and the plan granted tentative approval, the governing body may refuse to grant final approval on those grounds.

Facts and Procedural History

In July 2009, the Newtown Township Board of Supervisors (Township Board) enacted a PRD ordinance pursuant to Article VII of the MPC. BPG Real Estate Investors submitted a tentative plan proposing a multi-use development of a 218-acre tract of land. The plan identified the proposed buildings and specified the maximum square footage that would be devoted to residential units, office space, hotel space and "commercial/retail/restaurant" space. The Township Board approved the tentative plan. Newtown Square East, L.P. (NSE), the owner of property adjacent to the tract, filed a challenge to the validity of the PRD ordinance with the Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board (Zoning Board), arguing that the tentative plan failed to sufficiently identify the specific uses of buildings and structures included within the plan. The Zoning Board upheld the validity of the PRD ordinance, and NSE appealed the decision to the Court of Common Pleas. NSE also filed an appeal of the Township Board's approval of BPG's tentative plan with the Court of Common Pleas. 

The Court of Common Pleas agreed with the Zoning Board, holding that the PRD ordinance had only "minor textual differences" from the requirements of Article VII and did not exceed the scope of authority granted by the MPC. In addition, the court affirmed the Township Board's approval of the tentative plan, holding that the plan was consistent with the requirements of the PRD ordinance. NSE appealed both decisions to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (Commonwealth Court).

On appeal, NSE again argued that the PRD ordinance is inconsistent with the MPC because it does not require a developer to identify the specific use of the buildings and proposed structures in the plan. In rejecting NSE's claim, the court found that the stated purpose of Article VII of the MPC was to provide flexibility in the PRD approval process. By definition, a PRD permits broad categories of use for the purpose of determining whether a tentative plan satisfies desired ratios of residential to non-residential uses. Because the MPC requires no more than a categorical identification of proposed use, the court found NSE's argument unconvincing. The Commonwealth Court also rejected NSE's assertion that the lack of a public hearing at the final approval stage denied NSE due process. The court stated that there was "no substantive difference" between the PRD ordinance and the process afforded by the MPC; both permit variations between the tentative plan and the final plan, and both permit local authorities to assess whether these variations justify denying a final plan. Finally, the Commonwealth Court held that BPG's tentative plan was properly approved under the PRD ordinance. The tentative plan appropriately identified the location and category of proposed use for each structure contained within the plan, and the use-designations were consistent with the requirements of the PRD ordinance and the MPC. Therefore, the Township Board properly approved the tentative plan. NSE appealed the decisions of the Commonwealth Court.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth Court that the tentative plan's categorical use-designations were sufficient under the MPC and the PRD ordinance. The court held that, contrary to NSE's position, a developer is not required to designate a single category of permitted use for each building at the tentative plan stage. Indicating several possible uses for a proposed building is consistent with the PRD ordinance and the MPC. 

The Supreme Court also rejected NSE's argument that the ability to modify proposed uses between tentative and final approval infringed on the due process rights of neighboring landowners. NSE argued that the lack of public hearing with respect to the proposed variations undermined due process guarantees that are inherent in the MPC. The court rejected this argument and agreed with the Commonwealth Court. It found that in creating the PRD, the General Assembly intended to grant discretion to local authorities to determine which variations between a tentative and final plan were significant enough to warrant a refusal to grant approval of the final plan. Under NSE's interpretation, a new public hearing would be required each time a developer sought a change to its tentative plan, which is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the MPC. The court held that the PRD ordinance is consistent with, and "reflects the flexibility inherent in," the MPC.     

Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the decision of the Commonwealth Court. 

Justice Eakin's Dissent

In a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Saylor and Justice Todd, Justice Eakin disagreed that the tentative plan submitted by BPG was sufficiently specific, and found that the plan contained improper use-designations that precluded informed public comment and governmental consideration. Justice Eakin agreed that the PRD ordinance was consistent with the MPC and conceded that the MPC encourages, and requires flexibility in, the approval process. But according to Justice Eakin, that flexibility does not excuse a developer from classifying a proposed use and its location within the plan. Merely identifying a building or space as "commercial" or "non-residential" does not allow the governing body to understand what it is approving, or the public to ascertain whether it has any objections. Justice Eakin notes, "Flexibility does not equate to 'obfuscation by generality,'" and, in his view, the tentative plan contained insufficient information to allow an informed approval or sufficient public discourse.  

Justice Eakin stressed that his interpretation is necessary based on how the relevant MPC provisions are constructed. If an application for final approval has been properly filed and meets the specifications of the written communication of tentative approval, the MPC indicates that the municipality shall grant the application. See §10711(b). It is only when there are variations between the tentative and final plan that the municipality may refuse to grant final approval. See §10711(c). To Justice Eakin, these provisions illustrate the problem with allowing multi-use designations at the tentative-plan stage. A developer could make unfettered changes to the tentative plan and remain within the parameters of the MPC so long as the tentative plan was sufficiently vague. Accordingly, Justice Eakin dissented.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions